Diogenes:Marcus Aurelius: If only we had a law in the US covering hateful bigotry.

I like our ways better, frankly. It's messier, but in the end I think is more honest.

That said: Their country, their rules.

This and this. I like our way better -- let her speak, and let the demonstrations outside be so raucous that they leave people thinking "is this really what I want to be a part of?" Now she and the EDL get to claim they're being oppressed.

Super Chronic:Diogenes: Marcus Aurelius: If only we had a law in the US covering hateful bigotry.

I like our ways better, frankly. It's messier, but in the end I think is more honest.

That said: Their country, their rules.

This and this. I like our way better -- let her speak, and let the demonstrations outside be so raucous that they leave people thinking "is this really what I want to be a part of?" Now she and the EDL get to claim they're being oppressed.

I'm cool with that. As a Canadian, I know our free speech laws also prohibit certain kinds of speech, so I'm more okay with it than Americans might be. I do understand the argument though.

Considering that her only "job" seems to be staying perpetually outraged on the internet I don't see why she'd cry. Hell, the UK basically just wrote the next two weeks of her blog for her. Since they did all the work, she can simultaneously pin herself back up on her cross and go on vacation.

Corvus:"It's embarrassing for this so-called land of democracy and freedom of speech," he said.

You mean the Monarchy that has no codified protected rights?

And before people go on with the "It's not really a monarchy" stuff I deal with every thread. Yes it is a Monarchy that allows a democracy. Yes if the Monarchy one day said "Hey you guys can't do that anymore with your democracy", they might not get their way and their would be lots of going back and forth. But technically the Monarchy is still in charge.

Super Chronic:Diogenes: Marcus Aurelius: If only we had a law in the US covering hateful bigotry.

I like our ways better, frankly. It's messier, but in the end I think is more honest.

That said: Their country, their rules.

This and this. I like our way better -- let her speak, and let the demonstrations outside be so raucous that they leave people thinking "is this really what I want to be a part of?" Now she and the EDL get to claim they're being oppressed.

That's a good theory. More likely it will be a like Tea Party rally, where anyone who comes to counter-demonstrate gets libel from Fox News coverage and probably a kick to the stomach from a cop too (Im from Chicago, so I only know how Chicago cops treat non-right wing extremist protesters)

partisan222:also, a few multicultural nations that seem to have had their stuff together for hundreds of years: Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, India, China, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico.

Also, the United States. Virtually everyone here is from somewhere else, and most of us speak imported languages. A third of the country has Spanish names (like COLORADO,) a big swath in the middle has french names like Des Moines, and the rest is a jumble of German and Dutch and English. We've been multilingual and multicultural since day 1---despite the rantings of the tard squad and their weird belief that white people just popped out of holes in the ground and the USA was Mayberry until brown people arrived in the 1970s.

Bigot, racist, look, we're splitting hairs here. Yes, it's not a race. But as I said earlier, Islam is predominantly practiced by brown people (Arabs, Persians, Indonesians, incarcerated African Americans, etc), so one could say that they meant "Go be racist [towards brown races] somewhere else".

And before people go on with the "It's not really a monarchy" stuff I deal with every thread. Yes it is a Monarchy that allows a democracy. Yes if the Monarchy one day said "Hey you guys can't do that anymore with your democracy", they might not get their way and their would be lots of going back and forth. But technically the Monarchy is still in charge.

Charles I tried to impose direct royal authority over Parliament. He had his head cut off. James II argued with them (over religion, but it brought the political issues back to the fore). He died in exile. Under the aforementioned Bill of Rights, Parliament has the right to depose the monarch if (s)he says anything along the lines of "you guys can't do that any more with your democracy". It's us that allows them to stay, not the other way round, and they're fully aware of that.